시정명령취소
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Basic facts and circumstances of dispositions;
A. The chairperson of the Plaintiff Trade Union (hereinafter “Plaintiff Trade Union”) proposed 10 items as the agenda of the 99th representative meeting held on March 4, 2010 as the result of the 10th representative meeting held on the 10th 10th 20th 20th 2010, the amendment of the 10 items of the 10th amendment of the 10th 2010 draft of the 2010 draft of the 2010 draft of the 2010 draft of the 2010 draft of the 2010 draft of the 2010 draft of the 2010 draft of the 2010 draft of the 2010 draft of the 2010 draft of the
B. On April 15, 2010, 33 registered representatives, such as the representative C of the Plaintiff Trade Union and Labor Relations Council, submitted a written request for holding a conference for the purpose of the conference to the Plaintiff Trade Union. However, the chairperson B did not comply with the request for convening the above conference.
C. On April 19, 2010, Plaintiff Trade Union and Labor Relations Commission publicly announced the intent to hold an urgent general meeting with the “matters concerning the amendment of the Regulations (matters concerning the establishment, joining, or withdrawal of a union organization)” as an agenda item, etc.
Plaintiff
From April 27, 2010 to April 28, 2010, the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment held the above general meeting and passed a resolution with the consent of 80.18% of its members on the agenda that "matters concerning the amendment of the Regulations" and "matters concerning the establishment, joining, or withdrawal of an association", which are stipulated as the resolution of the Congress in accordance with Article 23 subparagraph 1 and 5 of the Regulations of this case, were amended to the general meeting for
(hereinafter “instant resolution”). E.
On June 8, 2010, three representatives of the Congress C, etc. filed an application for a corrective order with the Defendant on the ground that the instant resolution violated Article 23 subparag. 1, No. 5, and Article 96 of the Rules.
The defendant on September 17, 2010.